How can DC argue its position without stating the ban is for safety reasons?
If they can't do that, they might as well withdraw their appeal?
Here's the question SCOTUS will answer:
Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
DC will argue their ban does not violate 2nd Amendment rights because non-militia individuals have no 2nd Amendment rights and the ban
is for safety reasons.
I mean, what else can they say? I'm missing something here. I still don't quite follow what you and GoSlash are saying about limiting the arguments DC can put forth.
Now, as GoSlash has stated, maybe SCOTUS will summarily reject the non-militia members having no 2nd Amendment rights argument but the safety argument is the whole reason DC enacted the statute isn't it? That
IS their argument (i.e., after acknowledging that the DC authorities really do not feel non-militia members have any 2nd Amendment rights).
I mean the provisions of the DC statute were enacted for what the authorities thought were public safety concerns weren't they?
To say it another way Anti: DC will argue safety reasons trump 2nd Amendment rights. (Well, no, I really believe DC will
also argue we don't have 2nd Amendment rights but GoSlash has made a good argument that I might be wrong on that one.)
If DC can't argue (1) the individual non-militia member has no 2nd Amendment rights and (2) that safety reasons trump any 2nd Amendment rights, what the heck can they argue? I mean, there ain't nothing left to argue is there?
DC might as well just fold up their tents and concede.
I'm just not seeing the question limiting near as much as you guys are saying. Man, I hope you guys are correct!